linux-kernel - Re: [kernel-locking] question about structure field initialization

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 16 May 2017 12:16:13 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
To:     Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [kernel-locking] question about structure field initialization

Hi Chris,

Quoting Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>:

> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 03:00:02PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>>
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> While looking into Coverity ID 1402035 I ran into the following
>> piece of code at kernel/locking/test-ww_mutex.c:197:
>>
>> 197static int test_abba(bool resolve)
>> 198{
>> 199        struct test_abba abba;
>> 200        struct ww_acquire_ctx ctx;
>> 201        int err, ret;
>> 202
>> 203        ww_mutex_init(&abba.a_mutex, &ww_class);
>> 204        ww_mutex_init(&abba.b_mutex, &ww_class);
>> 205        INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&abba.work, test_abba_work);
>> 206        init_completion(&abba.a_ready);
>> 207        init_completion(&abba.b_ready);
>> 208        abba.resolve = resolve;
>> 209
>> 210        schedule_work(&abba.work);
>> 211
>> 212        ww_acquire_init(&ctx, &ww_class);
>> 213        ww_mutex_lock(&abba.a_mutex, &ctx);
>> 214
>> 215        complete(&abba.a_ready);
>> 216        wait_for_completion(&abba.b_ready);
>> 217
>> 218        err = ww_mutex_lock(&abba.b_mutex, &ctx);
>> 219        if (resolve && err == -EDEADLK) {
>> 220                ww_mutex_unlock(&abba.a_mutex);
>> 221                ww_mutex_lock_slow(&abba.b_mutex, &ctx);
>> 222                err = ww_mutex_lock(&abba.a_mutex, &ctx);
>> 223        }
>> 224
>> 225        if (!err)
>> 226                ww_mutex_unlock(&abba.b_mutex);
>> 227        ww_mutex_unlock(&abba.a_mutex);
>> 228        ww_acquire_fini(&ctx);
>> 229
>> 230        flush_work(&abba.work);
>> 231        destroy_work_on_stack(&abba.work);
>> 232
>> 233        ret = 0;
>> 234        if (resolve) {
>> 235                if (err || abba.result) {
>> 236                        pr_err("%s: failed to resolve ABBA
>> deadlock, A err=%d, B err=%d\n",
>> 237                               __func__, err, abba.result);
>> 238                        ret = -EINVAL;
>> 239                }
>> 240        } else {
>> 241                if (err != -EDEADLK && abba.result != -EDEADLK) {
>> 242                        pr_err("%s: missed ABBA deadlock, A
>> err=%d, B err=%d\n",
>> 243                               __func__, err, abba.result);
>> 244                        ret = -EINVAL;
>> 245                }
>> 246        }
>> 247        return ret;
>> 248}
>>
>> The issue here is that apparently abba.result is being used at lines
>> 235, 237 and 241 without previous initialization.
>>
>> It seems to me that this is an issue, but I may be overlooking something.
>> Can someone help me to spot where exactly abba.result is being
>> initialized, if at all?
>
> You are only looking at half the code. Though the schedule/flush it is
> indirectly executing test_abba_work().
> -Chris
>

I get it.

Thanks for clarifying!
--
Gustavo A. R. Silva